Throughout the world's oceans, hard structures such as natural reefs provide ideal marine habitats. Reefs provide hard surfaces to which plants, coral and sponges can attach, and thereby provide food and shelter for many types of fish. Recently, workers in the fishing industry have tried to increase the amount of suitable habitat for fish by construction artificial reefs from old metal objects and industrial materials and placing them in coastal waters. Artificial reefs have several benefits.
Many fishers believe that by giving fish more places to gather and reproduce artificial reefs have increased the populations of some species of fish. For example a report from one extensive artificial reef program in the Gulf of Mexico shows that the number of red snapper fish harvested in the area has increased by as much as ten times compared with harvests century ago. The increases in the number of fish caught began after the start of the artificial reef program.
Artificial reefs can also improve the economic competitiveness of small-scale fishers. This is because small-scale fishers are able to create their own private artificial reefs in secret locations only they know. Currently, small-scale fishers struggle to compete with larger corporations because fishing grounds are limited in number and most are known to everyone. Creating fishing areas known only to the fishers who make them will help independent fishers support themselves and their local communities.
Finally, artificial reefs are a good way to recycle materials no longer needed for other purposes. Artificial reefs can be made from old cars and other objects that are otherwise difficult to dispose of. Once these materials have been cleaned to ensure that no harmful chemicals remain, they can be placed in the ocean to serve as reefs for marine life. Artificial reefs thus provide a relatively inexpensive, environmentally friendly way to reuse materials.
In the passage, the author concentrates on several arguments to prove that artificial reefs have some advantages. However, the lecturer, cast doubt on these arguments and respectively points out problems with all author's claims.
To begin with, the author believes that this new plan is a good way to increase the population of some special species. However, the lecturer highlighted the fact that this plan just attracts other fish from other places to new reefs, as a good place for living. Therefore, the fisher can harvest them easily by doing so their population will decrease.
Moreover, the passage states that small fishers economically will be in a better condition by building their private reefs in secret places. The lecturer raises the fact that this idea makes safety a problem. In the secret sites, part of them destroy and crash in the sea, especially in shallow water and they can not stay safe as long as being secret. However, when they make those places public, the small fishers can not compete with bigger fishers.
The last point discussed in the passage has to do with using recycled materials which are useless to build the artificial reefs. In addition, the passage mentioned that these kinds of materials are not harmful to the environment. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up the fact that these materials have a destructive effect on the environment. He presented an example of tires that they can crash to the sea floor by storm. Indeed, they release harmful chemicals that kill many animals in the sea.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, moreover, so, as to, in addition, as a result, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1455.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96587030717 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5841699853 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549488054608 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.2921387062 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5333333333 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13333333333 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0845082815805 0.272083759551 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0263286659533 0.0996497079465 26% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330425835865 0.0662205650399 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0514170041741 0.162205337803 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.032548836618 0.0443174109184 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.